Australian Advertising Watch Group Says Companies Are Responsible For Comments On Their Facebook Pages
from the no-they-freaking-aren't dept
Techdirt has dealt a great deal with how artists and companies should be connecting with their fans and customers and how an active community can increase the brand. We've also discussed the value of comments and commentors on websites and what they can mean for discussion and for business. But now, thanks to an Australian advertising watch group, we're presented with a question that intersects between the two: should a business community's comments be considered advertising?The Australian details the story of how the Advertising Standards Bureau is releasing a report attacking Carlton & United Breweries over comments users posted to their Facebook pages. Like many companies, they have a presence on social media with which they engage their customers and ask deep, contemplating questions like "What's the next essential needed for a great Australia Day BBQ?" Personally, I would've answered with something involving marsupial-racing, but, in a turn of events nobody except everybody could have predicted, some user comments were what expert socialogists call "dick-ish." The ASB decided that these abhorrent comments qualified as the brewery's advertising:
"In a copy of the report obtained by Media, the ASB said comments left by people on the social network site constituted advertising, even though the company had not posted them.Perhaps the folks at the ASB had had one too many Foster's, because in my dictionary the definition of advertising involves the company calling attention to a product or service in the hopes of gaining more customers. I'm not sure how user comments on a Facebook page fit that definition, but then again, I'm not insane. It'd be bad enough if this was some regular occurrence left completely unchecked by the brewery, but all along they had been checking the page twice a day to remove inappropriate comments. They were already self-policing, but the ASB still felt compelled to assign ownership of user comments to the brewery.
The complaint to the ASB claimed that the Facebook page breached alcohol advertising guidelines by connecting alcohol with social or sexual prowess and promoted irresponsible drinking and excessive consumption."
The concern, of course, is the way this is going to stifle brands jumping into social media. As we've discussed here many times in the past, the basic safe harbor protections from secondary liability are a large part of what makes the internet work. If the brewery is responsible for user comments to the degree that the ASB seems to be indicating, the liability and staff required to monitor comments won't be worth the exposure, and brands and fans alike will lose a valuable way to connect with one another.
""It would be unduly onerous on alcohol beverage producers and indeed any company participating in this medium to interpret the code as including user comments on Facebook pages as falling within the scope of 'advertising or marketing communications', since CUB does not have a reasonable degree of control over them," the company said."And that results in the very antithesis of connecting with your fans/customers. Overly restrictive advertising regulations like this can only stifle business, all in the apparent attempt to pretend that some people aren't jerks. Let's hope that the ASB's report is struck down.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising standards bureau, australia, connect with fans, liability, secondary liability, social networking commnets
Companies: carlton & united
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As a self proclaimed dick
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Personal Responsibility
The only person who is responsible for what they post IS THE PERSON WHO POSTED IT.
Honestly, it's not a hard thing to understand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nigel
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is that really a concern? It seems like a minor benefit to me. The concern, of course, is over the broader implications on responsibility for user-generated content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster's_Lager
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Impractical to Monitor
I'm no fan of that restaurant, because they're making bigotry and intolerance a selling point, but I CAN entertain the possibility that they had nothing to do with the sock-puppet.
I am also aware that some companies will pay below-minimum-wage workers to flood comment areas with a particular message. How do you prove this has happened? It's not that hard to obscure the truth.
I don't think the Advertising Standards Bureau has really given this matter any deep thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Personal Responsibility
[ link to this | view in thread ]
you're also not Australian. what a strange bunch they are!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Get the facts, please
The ASB decided that:
(a) A company's Facebook page was advertising;
(b) That the company was responsible for the comments posted by sock puppets - accounts managed by or on behalf of the company.
The complaint was that Carlton & United Brewery (a SAB Miller subsidiary) was breaching the "voluntary" advertising code which required it to promote responsible use of alcohol on its' Facebook page. It also turned out that many of comments were made by the public relations/marketing groups financed by CUB.
The ASB ruled that both Facebook pages and sock puppet comments were advertising and subject to the code.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chaos
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crazy people always say that
Are you sure about that? Are you?
Are you?!?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The only companies responsible
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Advertising-Standards-Bureau/107905399237418?ref=ts
I wonder, if we posted something against the rules, would they have to censor themselves?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just so you know....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
What I think you mean to say is that there are two versions of Foster's, one that is made overseas and one that is made locally.
Personally (and around 85% of the beer drinking population of Aussies agree with me.. in other words all of us) the only difference between the offshore and onshore products is that the offshore one tastes a bit less like Dingo's Piss and more towards Emu piss. They are NOT an indication of good Aussie beers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
We are NOT strange, Nucking Futs absolutely and never normal, but strange? nope Japan holds the title of Strangest, with the USA and France coming in a close 2nd and 3rd
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Personal Responsibility
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's sold overseas only, as an Australia beer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Face-whatever.
I would have to say that, now, yes, they are responsible for the comments because they are using fan-generated comments to reach other fans and promote the brand. So if they do not remove or address the comments(I prefer that they address such comments, as that would be more open and responsible, and a better demonstration of the "drink responsibly" culture they are supposedly on board with), then they should be held accountable for them.
That would cover all content appearing on their advertising FB page. Not very confusing at all. Internet social networking doesn't change anything here. What is so special about it? I don't care how "passively" the company is displaying consumer endorsement, it is advertising.
Of course, I would say that they should have a reasonable amount of time to address such comments, and be given opportunity to review comments which someone (private or gov) reports as violating whatever rule or law.
I would think that CwF by other sorts of ventures (artists and such) might apply such rules a bit differently: These are generally more personal connections and so is the fan commentary. (Well, and the rules governing advertising for controlled items are a bit different.) However, this doesn't mean various horrible comments should go unaddressed - this is bad for business anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beer for comment
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]